tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post561648860163203055..comments2017-12-12T14:24:15.796-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: The Real Quarrels over the Quartering ActJ. L. Bellnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-84830989605538755632010-01-07T23:20:50.788-05:002010-01-07T23:20:50.788-05:00The eighteenth century wasn’t really a time of “sl...The eighteenth century wasn’t really a time of “slogans.” People made their arguments with long, complex sentences. You can find an objection to “quartering large bodies of troops among us” in one of those long, complex sentences in the Declaration of Independence.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-57202119527309397512010-01-07T19:54:43.992-05:002010-01-07T19:54:43.992-05:00Do you know some slogans they used in protest for ...Do you know some slogans they used in protest for the Quartering Act?Need Helpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-46915243034351890612008-05-20T13:41:00.000-05:002008-05-20T13:41:00.000-05:00I wrote in the above comment that the Quartering A...I wrote in the above comment that the Quartering Act was “labeled ‘Intolerable’.” Since then, I tried to find an example of a 1770s American using that term, and failed. I now suspect the phrase “Intolerable Acts” <A HREF="http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2008/04/no-tolerance-for-intolerable-acts.html" REL="nofollow">dates from the late 1800s</A>.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-63651994151921714372007-03-28T20:42:00.000-05:002007-03-28T20:42:00.000-05:00The 1765 Quartering Act produced problems in New Y...The 1765 Quartering Act produced problems in New York and Massachusetts. The 1774 Act seems to have been a Parliamentary response to those conflicts—in particular, to Gen. Thomas Gage's memory of the challenge of securing barracks for troops in Boston in 1768. <BR/><BR/>The 1774 Quartering Act definitely simplified the quartering process by giving that authority to the governor directly. The brevity of the second law alone shows how much simpler it was.<BR/><BR/>But as for lines of authority, they didn't change much. Justices of the peace were appointed by governors. Depending on the colony, governors either had veto power over Council members, or they were all appointed in London to support the governor. And officials appointed by the governor for quartering were, ipso facto, appointed by the governor.<BR/><BR/>In practice, Massachusetts governors Francis Bernard and Thomas Hutchinson were at times slowed by their Councils and by justices appointed under previous governors. The new law would have given Gov. Gage an easier time of it. But both laws still empowered officials who derived their authority ultimately from royal appointment, not from local election. <BR/><BR/>The 1774 Act, though labeled "Intolerable," never really went into effect. As I noted earlier, Gage was able to find quarters for his troops in Boston without resorting to coercion. But by then the <I>principle</I> of opposition to unlegislated quartering, like the principle of no taxation without representation, had taken hold in Americans' minds. In other words, people could and did get upset by the law even without suffering from it.<BR/><BR/>The Massachusetts constitution requires the elected legislature to come up with rules for quartering in wartime. The U.S. Constitution says those rules must be "by law," which by clear implication then meant through Congress, though not every executive branch would see it that way. Those statements of rights definitely negated Parliament's Quartering Acts. <BR/><BR/>But at the same time, it's valuable to see how the Quartering Act quarrels of the 1760s were between the local communities as a whole and royal appointees, not between local communities/governments and individual property owners. Not having the colonial experience of a distant government we had no part in choosing, we modern Americans tend to see conflicts through the latter lens.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-85846038800184408212007-03-28T19:26:00.000-05:002007-03-28T19:26:00.000-05:00J.L.,Thank you for the feedback. A close read of ...J.L.,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the feedback. A close read of the text you have cited as well as the text of the Quartering Acts bring to light some interesting ideas.<BR/><BR/>Your point about the conception of the "house" (a man's home is his castle) is certainly well taken. But the Massachusetts provision says "any house." The term "any" functions to broaden the scope as opposed to acting as a term of limitation. This presumes that the framers knew what they were saying, that they meant what they said, and that they chose their words advisedly.<BR/><BR/>Also, I cannot recall whether you said it was the Quartering Act of 1774 alone that angered the people, or whether it was both the 1765 and the 1764 act. Consider the text of the provision from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights that you quoted, and then please consider the following: <BR/><BR/>The 1765 Quartering Act conferred power to take "uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings." However, as I read the text, it appeared on its face that the governor and council did not exercise this power themselves. Rather, the statute allowed them to <I>appoint someone to exercise this power on their behalf.</I> And in the absence of this appointed person, the statute vested the power in <I>justices of the peace.</I> This implies the requirement of a buffer between the governor himself and the exercise of the authority. <BR/><BR/>However, the 1774 Act conferred the power directly on the governor. This is relevant because it demonstrates a removal of the buffer between the executive himself and the people.<BR/><BR/>Now consider that in light of the Massachusetts provision: ". . . in time of war, such quarters ought not be made but by the civil magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislature." Whatever procedures legislature creates, the Massachusetts provision mandates the presence of the buffer.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, again, for the thoughtful response and this continued dialogue.msnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-47894974358191551552007-03-28T13:09:00.000-05:002007-03-28T13:09:00.000-05:00Good points. I looked up the Massachusetts Constit...Good points. I looked up the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, and its anti-quartering provision was written into the first part of the work, the Declaration of Rights, rather than included as an afterthought (as the U.S. Bill of Rights was). <BR/><BR/>The text:<BR/>"Art. XXVII. In time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; and in time of war, such quarters ought not be made but by the civil magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislature."<BR/><BR/>There is a legal difference between "owner" and "inhabitant," of course. The term "house" was used in the 18th century for a great many buildings, not just those where people lived (though people often lived in the same buildings where they worked, fogging the boundaries). So this constitutional provision did probably go against some of the Quartering Acts' statements about unoccupied buildings. But I think it reflected a broader American (and British) conception of a man's home as his castle rather than specific prewar grievances.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-50121759418794838462007-03-28T12:52:00.000-05:002007-03-28T12:52:00.000-05:00This is very interesting. Your historical analysi...This is very interesting. Your historical analysis is significant in many regards. For me, it is interesting because the Federal Bill of Rights was modeled on the Declarations of Rights by the States. From what I understand the first Massachusetts Constitution was drafted in 1780. I do not know too much about the Massachusetts Constitution in general, or whether it contains a provision similar to the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, in state constitutional analysis, the history of a provision can be an important part of the analysis. The history of the provision explains the mischief that the state wanted to remedy. Thank you.msnoreply@blogger.com